Here Today... Gone To Hell!

y JOHN HOPKINS, The Virginian-Pilot
? August 19, 2005 | Last updated 1:08 AM Aug. 19

CHESAPEAKE ? An $8,500 settlement has been tentatively reached between Chili?s Grill and Bar and a local mother who alleged that her 1-year-old son was injured at the restaurant after being served hot mashed potatoes.

Brinker Virginia Inc., the parent company of Chili?s Grill and Bar, filed a petition last week in Chesapeake Circuit Court, seeking the court?s approval of the settlement. A hearing on that request is scheduled for Sept. 7, according to court records.

The mother, Jacqueline Henderson, alleged that her son was burned on the face from ?overheated?? mashed potatoes, according to court records. While dining, the child managed to splash potatoes on his cheek while at the restaurant on Feb. 26, 2005, according to court records.

The mother alleged that the ?overheated food?? was the result of negligence on the part of the restaurant.

?Without admitting liability,?? and ?expressly denying?? the claim, Chili?s offered a compromise settlement of $8,500 , according to the company?s petition.

The money is to be used for the health, education, maintenance and support of the child.

The boy was evaluated at a pediatric dermatology clinic and a pink spot was observed on the left side of his face, according to court records. The child was treated with burn cream and was expected to heal from the burn, according to records of the examination.

Chris Barnes, a spokesman for the company, described it as a ?routine claim?? but said he would not comment further on the matter.

You got to be kidding me .


I quess I should sue Burger king next time a fries are hot.

It's the mother's responsibility to make sure her baby's food is at an appropriate temperature before giving it to him.

People can't expect restaurants to serve cold food. It seems illegal that someone could get away with suing over something like that.

As nutty as it seems, it was probably easier to make a settlement then deal with this loser.

Maybe she could sue the sun next for giving her a sunburn?

im waiting for the day where you'll be able to sue a restaurant if you just did not like the food :)

and yeah journey, mothers are supposed to taste and then blow on the babie's food. that lady should be sued for being stupid.

I agree this lawsuit is stupid, but I can kind of understand, as a parent. ?I had a similar situation once with my child. ?I was out to dinner with my little girl and a friend. ?My friend's order was wrong, so they had taken it back and I'm sure rushed to get the correct thing out. ?When the waitress came with the dish, she was using a hotmit to hold it and said "Careful this is hot" as she set it down. ?My little girl, who I think was 3 at the time, reached out to touch it. ?She wanted to see how hot it was. ?It happened so quickly, I couldn't stop her. ?Needless to say, she got a significant burn. ?I'm telling you, that dish had to have come straight out of an oven. ?I was angry, but I didn't make a scene or sue, because I'm not that kind of person. ?And I saw it as an unfortunate accident, and a lesson learned for my daughter. ?But doesn't a restaurant have some responsibility not to put something that hot on the table, especially in front of a small child?

ahah "careful it's hot" ....  we always touch .... as elaine says " I just wanted to know what your idea of 'hot' is. "

If the waitress said "Watch out it's hot", isn't that being responsible?

Childrens plates should not be scalding hot though, I agree.

Well the compnay took the easy way out - a half decent lawyer could have got the whole thing thrown out, but i guess they didn't want the hassle - which just allows idiots to win

The decision was $$$ based. It would have cost them more in court costs and lawyer fees to fight it. She probably knew this too.

mind boggling :no: always someone looking for a 'free ride'....reminds of Seinfeld when Kramer sued for burning his nads with hot coffee..

Like 10 years ago, an old lady spilled McDonald's coffe on her lap and sued complaining she didn't know it was hot.  I think she won like 5 million dollars.  McDonalds subsequently added a "hot beverage" warning label to their coffe cups.

Not condoning these suits, but actually the coffee in that case was like the twice the temperature that it is normally served.  Plus, all she asked for was them to pay her doctor bills.  McDonalds basically told her to fuck off.  Then she brought suit.

she asked for coffee and she damn well knew it was hot .

It wasn't McDonalds fault she spilled it on herslf.

i might as well sue the ice cream parlour for giving me cold ice cream....after i, i dont want to eat undercooked food :rant:

Fair enough, I am not saying I think she should have been awarded anything, but the lady did get fucked up.  If you spill coffee you may expect to get burnt, but at the temperature that the coffee was she got more than burnt.  Was it negligent that they had the coffee that hot, and was it forseeable that someone might spill the coffee at that temperature causing serious harm to someone?  I think so.  Again, I do have some sympathy for her since all she wanted was help paying the doctors bills, not some huge amount of punitive damages.

Yes, these people forget to forget about this thing called: Living.

In it accidents can happen.

With regard to the McDonalds suit, the coffee was about 180 degrees farenheit and normal coffe is 130-140 degrees farenheit.  The old lady spilled the coffe on her lap and sat their for 10 minutes before her grandson finally made her take her pants off.  A Burn specialist in the matter stated that the same burns would have resulted had the coffee been the normal temperature and left on the skin for that long.  McDonalds argument was that customer's bought their coffee knowing it was hotter because that way they could take it to work and it would still be warm.  What it comes down too is that people want a law that protects them from being retarded.  There was a guy who sued a restraunt because their food was so cheap he could afford to gorge himself and have a heart attack.  Another law suit was from a person who put their car on cruise control and went to sleep - they thought the car would drive itself.  Finally another famout suit stems from a guy who drank a gallon of milk a day and had medical complications due to that - he thought it was alright to drink something that is approximately 70% fat.  I hope you Europeans don't have the same amount of retarded lawsuits as we do in America.

They don't because they have what is called "loser pays".

If we had that here, stupid ass law suits would end.

Only in America  ::)

Yah, but then our friends in the ABA couldnt file suits with immunity :nervous:  We certainly wouldn't want to hurt the pocket books of the attorney lobby.  After all, many indigent people get represented that otherwise wouldn't.

FYI:  The cruise control thing didn't happen...its an urban legend.  http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp

I don't know about the others, I couldn't find mention of those either way.

Let lawyers do their normal pro bono work for indigent people I say.

Loser pays is the way to cut this shit out....although it would never happen.

Good point.  Why do we alwasy want to eat the thing that says DONT EAT??

can you sue people if you DO eat it???

Well my daughter was 3.  I wouldn't feel so bad for an adult.  But I guess what I'm saying is that when someone hands you a plate of food, and says, this is hot, you can reasonably expect that if you touch it, it will be uncomfortable.  You don't expect to get 2nd degree burns.  At least I wouldn't.  So I'm wondering if at some point, the restaurant does become negligent by serving you something that is EXTREMELy hot, beyond what a reasonable person would expect. 

I agree, I was being sarcastic

lol, sometimes I'm slow like that...or read too fast.

i think many lawsuits are stupid and people just want money for anything , but for example if you go to a restaurant you wont expect the food they give you to be a danger for yourself , yes the potatoes should be hot but in some degree , also the coffee, you know its hot but you cant have a coffee that can give you 3rd degree burns . im not saying that this lawsuits are right , but its not stupid to think that there must be rules or protection against this things. there are restaurants that put the food and the plate directly from the microwave (or oven) into the table , it doesnt matter if they tell you "watch out its hot" they shouldnt put something that can burn a person in the table.